The High Court ruled that a farmer’s claim to farmland he said had been promised to him was statute-barred because proceedings against the deceased farmer’s estate were issued more than two years after the farmer died.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice O’Keeffe on 20 May 2009, determined a preliminary issue in a case brought by Michael Prendergast against Neil McLaughlin, the personal representative of Patrick Dempsey’s estate. It did not determine whether the alleged promises were made or whether Prendergast was entitled to the land.
For the preliminary issue only, the parties agreed that Prendergast, a neighbour and farmer, had assisted Patrick Dempsey and his brother John with the Ballinamona farmland for more than 25 years. They also agreed that Prendergast alleged he had repeatedly been told the lands would be left to him, and that he continued helping in reliance on those assurances and to his prejudice. The judgment states that these were agreed facts for deciding the limitation question, without admissions for the substantive hearing.
John Dempsey’s 1997 will left the farmland to Patrick and a legacy of €2,539.48 to Prendergast. John died in July 2000. Patrick died intestate on 28 August 2003. The agreed facts also included Prendergast’s account that, several weeks before Patrick’s death, Patrick told him he had instructed a solicitor to prepare a will leaving him the farm. No such will was executed. Prendergast’s plenary summons issued on 25 July 2006.
The defendant argued that the claim arose during Patrick’s lifetime and survived against his estate, bringing it within section 9 of the Civil Liability Act 1961. The plaintiff argued that a claim based on a promise to leave land by will could not arise until death, when it became clear the promise had not been fulfilled.
The judge accepted the defendant’s argument. He concluded that the claim, whether framed in contract, quasi-contract or equity, was already subsisting when Patrick died. The court preferred the reasoning in Corrigan v Martin to that in Reidy v McGreevy, and found Bank of Ireland v O’Keeffe distinguishable because that case’s claim arose only after a demand was made.
The court held that no proceedings were pending when Patrick died, so the applicable deadline was the earlier relevant limitation period or two years after death. It found the action should have been issued by 27 August 2005. Because it was issued in July 2006, the claim was statute-barred. The ruling resolved only the preliminary limitation issue.